Leonardi de Oliveira Rigotti R, Dias Corpa Tardelli J, Cândido Dos Reis A. Influence of antibacterial surface treatment on dental implants on cell viability: A systematic review.
Heliyon 2023;
9:e13693. [PMID:
36895374 PMCID:
PMC9988489 DOI:
10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13693]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2022] [Revised: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/17/2023] Open
Abstract
There is no consensus in the literature about the best non-cytotoxic antibacterial surface treatment for dental implants. Critically evaluate the existing literature and answer the question: "which surface treatment for dental implants made of titanium and its alloys has the greatest non-cytotoxic antibacterial activity for osteoblastic cells?" This systematic review was registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8fq6p) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols. The search strategy was applied to four databases. Articles were selected that evaluated in both studies the properties of 1) antibacterial activity and 2) cytotoxicity on osteoblastic cells of titanium and their alloy dental implants when treated superficially. Systematic reviews, book chapters, observational studies, case reports, articles that studied non-dental implants, and articles that evaluated only the development of surface treatment were excluded. The Joanna Briggs Institute, a quasi-experimental study assessment tool, was adapted to assess the risk of bias. The search strategy found 1178 articles in the databases after removing duplicates in EndNote Web, resulting in 1011 articles to be evaluated by title and abstract, of which 21 were selected for full reading, of which 12 were included by eligibility criteria, and nine were excluded. Quantitative synthesis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data (surface treatment, antibacterial assay, bacteria strain, cell viability assay, and cell type). Risk of bias assessment showed that ten studies were classified as low risk and two studies as moderate risk. The evaluated literature allowed us to conclude that: 1) The literature surveyed did not allow answering the question due to the heterogeneity of the studies; 2) Ten of the 12 studies evaluated presented surface treatments with non-cytotoxic antibacterial activity; 3) Adding nanomaterials, QPEI, BG, and CS, reduce the chances of bacterial resistance by controlling their adhesion by electrical forces.
Collapse